Yet another 'comportamental' example is the interplay among MORE THAN ONE fictious identities. In Balif's example (see enemy.htm), you have seen how his target used a whole plethora of faked personalities in order to create a 'group' impression. Of course the more fictious identities you identify, the easier it is to see the common sharp edges they possess.

Thus the language of Usenet demonstrates several characteristics more typical of oral communication in an organizational setting, casual conversation or, rather, organized meetings.

In fact the syntax and word choice often evoke conversational informality, emphasis, rhythm, and even vocalizations. On the other hand, the messages may also evince characteristics of written discourse such as formal wording, careful composing and editing, and textual formatting.A typical case is when there is a LIST of points

1) inside

2) your target's

3) email

There is also at times an interesting evidence of patterns that are a distinctively characteristic of web interaction. Many messages display ascii graphic, typographical ascii jokes, signets and subject line humor, patterns also that are very unlikely in written and oral discourse. All such patterns ca be, at times, interesting clues.

These clues and patterns reflect both the capabilities of the web and the characteristics of the group. The interactivity of oral discourse is in fact supported and encouraged on Usenet by the ability to engage in rapid exchanges and to collect and respond to embedded excerpts of previous messages. At the same time the asynchronous nature of the web and the editing capabilities of the participants' email applications allow reflection and crafting patterns more characteristic of the written discourse. The web's ability to support informal textual exchanges allow a playful relationship with the text, or to indulge in flaming.

Of course all sort of interaction, the characteristics of the individual targets, their social community, and their motherlanguage influence the particular combination of linguistic and textual characteristics that they express.

Do not underestimate the richness and complexity of email communication... as soon as you'll have learned your stalking abc you'll never miss much all the clues that the real, non virtual world gives you when you communicate.

Now have a look at the semplified version of Fravia's stalking tablet (TM):

verbal self-disclosure, statements by the author of the message about the author of the message: 0 = no 1=yes.

"I'll trade ya shit", "I still like Netscape", "I'm an email junkie", "My hair is black" but not "My mother's hair is black" or "My cat is black"

GRAMMAR

measure whether or not the message body gives clues about the education of the author: 0 = no, 1 = yes.

"the distinction between amateur and professional" "I gave him an acknowledging e-mail wave and he answered in kind " "an unjustifiable extravagance"

OPINION

measure statements of the personal opinion of the message author; it had to indicate the first person directly or indirectly. 0 = no opinion was present, 1 = opinion was present.

"I think lusers should be banned", "Chocolate is a favorite flavor of mine", "I love lollypops".

FACT

measure statement of fact (whether or not the fact was correct), without first person reference to the message sender: 0 = no statement of fact, 1 = one or more statements of fact.

"God has created the earth and Winsconsin." "The government is loaded with freeloaders." "Communists rule." But not "according to me"

KNOWLE

measure whether or not the message body gives clues about the level of computer/internet knwoledge of the author: 0 = no, 1 = yes.

"operands which are addresses will get added the image base of the DLL" "get a trowaway account at any third-party service provider so as to throw a bulk mailbomb past his first line blocks. The account will cease to exist in short order, but you'll have already tested his precious defending bots"

measure degree of agreement or disagreement with another person or statement previously appearing in the group discussion. 0 = no reference to another person's message, 1 = mild response to other persons on the group, 2 = strong response to other persons on the group.

Gotcha! (0=FALSE 1=TRUE)

I don't think it needs a lot of explanations, keep in mind that the PURPOSE of the above tablet is not so much to understand directly WHO is your target, but to understand if your target is in reality the one candidate you suspect. Once you have zeroed in, you'll stalk the (presumibly less protected) other PSEUDO in order to find out -if all works well- WHO is your target... and some luring techniques (and social engineering) will at that moment be quite useful, see my luring.htm section...

A word of warning:

You found my site and you are reading this, therefore you have now a relatively "high" level of web-lore and reversing knowledge.Until recently I kept this section of mine in a "closed" server with other mildly powerful and potentially dangerous tutorials and tools. I am now going public with my stalking lore because spamming has taken incredibly annoying proportions and I have decided to create as many powerful Fravias as possible in order to tackle and destroy the commercial idiots.

Yet, as you perfectly know, knowledge can be used either for good or for evil. Knowledge, especially this kind of knowledge, is a powerful weapon. You may use it to defend yourself but you may

not use it to offend innocentsI hope to have you at my side, fighting on the web for knowledge and against all commercial zombies, but I cannot avoid that you join the dark side if you want to... if you do, however, take care not to meet me.